[got "more than a little" off-topic] New paradigms [was: request: python style decorators / aspect orientation]

[Georg Wrede]

david wrote:
> <rant>
> Picking up the topic of quantum computing, I broaden it to
> quantum mechanics - et voilà!
> It's just that from time to time I come across an article
> that states something (about e.g. the future in general,
> philosophy, psychology, ...), and when it comes to the point
> where it says that in the end we don't really know,
> finishes with "uncertainty, just like in quantum mechanics!".
> And when you don't know better, you believe that (whatever it is
> that you try to connect with it) and are impressed!
> (At least some of my friends I asked about it.)
> Some people just tend to learn a few terms only to impress
> laymen - and when you're an "insider", it's *so* obvious...

Most of the time the article writers don't really understand the issue. 
They ask experts, try to read advanced literature, but the /real 
understanding/ isn't there. That's fine for the "average reader", i 
guess. But the astute reader, or those who know at least something about 
the topic, often get frustrated.

Academic texts would be better, but then they're not for the general 
public, so they usually are intractable. It's such a shame. And there 
seem to exist so few people who can (or bother to) explain forefront 
stuff to laymen. (With a very few but notable exceptions.)

> That said, quantum computers still make for a _very_ interesting
> field of research. Ever wondered how you could cut down the search
> time for a special dataset in a random database?

I wonder if I'm different than others. I can read things "on a belief 
basis", but in my head they get tagged as "not fact", no matter how big 
an authority says it. Especially at school I had to do this a lot. But 
other things I read, I could tag as "hard fact", or "understood" right 
away. And those I seem to remember much better.

Also it often happened (and actually still does) that things come 
together and click, now I understand something new. All those things I 
do remember for the rest of my life.

Sadly, quantum mechanics, string theory, and some other things I simply 
have to read on this "belief basis". I have to memorize that this guy 
said this and that guy said that, and the majority seem to think this 
about that, etc. That's a waste of time and mental energy, when articles 
really could and should be written so that already when you are reading 
them, you can go "ah, yes, of course", or "hmm, this would imply that, 
wonder if he's going to comment on in", or "awww, this is total crap".

Take for instance the jet engine. Already at school I could draw a cross 
section of it and explain every detail. But I felt that I don't 
/understand/ why it works. No teacher or adult could explain the 
/essence/ of it, they all just told me what I already knew. Then one day 
in adulthood it just went click. And the jet engine got tagged as 
understood.

Or the airplane wing. Ask around and you get a few explanations on why 
it keeps the plane up in the air. Go home and write down each 
explanation. Then try this: imagine the same wing, except that the 
leading edge is made sharp. Now, which of the explanations are good 
enough that you can predict what that does to the lift? (Even without 
understanding any aerodynamics, one can be pretty sure that the blunt 
leading edge is somehow better, or else all wings would have a sharp 
leading edge, since it is "obvious" that the blunt edge creates more 
drag. But don't mention the leading edge to the explainers.)

And if you understand how something works (as opposed to learning the 
manual by heart), you can apply the thing in ways never imagined by the 
designer. And you will succeed, and you don't break the thing misusing it.

For example, my understanding of quantum entanglement is at the "trying 
to read the manual by heart" level. And I'm not happy about it.